考研阅读精选：空气质量监管 不会很快见效
『关于发电厂空气排放的新规定引来了一系列法律诉讼。』Air-quality regulations：Don’t hold your breath
空气质量监管：不会很快见效
Oct 15, 2011 | From The Economist
http://images.koolearn.com/casupload/upload/fckeditorUpload/2011-11-14/image/ee2d0dc100444bef85d237847974760d.jpg
THERE is nothing like a broad new federal regulation to make Jarndyceand Jarndyce seem like a simple dispute over a traffic ticket. As ofOctober 11th no fewer than 36 separate entities—states, cities, powercompanies, trade associations—had petitioned the United States Court ofAppeals for the DC Circuit to review or stop the EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) from implementing the Cross-State Air PollutionRule (CSAPR). Eight entities have intervened on the EPA’s behalf. Morecould jump into the fray in the next month.
The rule at thecentre of this scrum requires power plants in 28 states—everything fromTexas eastwards, except Delaware and the six New England states, andincluding Oklahoma, Nebraska and Kansas—to reduce emissions thatcontribute to ozone and fine-particle pollution in other states. (Otherstates’ emissions do not have enough of an effect on air-quality inneighbouring states to trigger a reduction.) The rule is scheduled totake effect from January 1st 2012. By 2014 these states’ sulphur-dioxideemissions must be 27% of what they were in 2005, while nitrogen-oxidelevels must fall to 46% of their 2005 levels.
CSAPR replacesthe Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), issued in March 2005, and also thesubject of lengthy litigation before the same court, which found in it“more than several fatal flaws”. The court left CAIR’s provisions inplace, but ordered the EPA to come up with a better rule: hence CSAPR.The EPA claims that by 2014 CSAPR will prevent 13,000-34,000pollution-related premature deaths, and yield between $120 billion and$280 billion in health and environmental benefits annually. Thosebenefits, the EPA insists, outweigh the costs of implementation; thoughthere may be rate changes for consumers, these should be “well withinthe range of normal electricity price fluctuations”.
Otherstake a less sanguine view. Sam Olens, Georgia’s attorney-general, saysthat by setting up federal implementation plans for states to follow,rather than simply setting pollution targets and letting states come upwith their own plans, CSAPR usurps state authority. Georgia’s petitionalso claims the EPA’s models contain errors that exaggerate the state’semissions and force it to cut too much. Mr Olens also worries thatcustomers’ electricity bills could jump by up to 20%, and that theregulation could cost jobs if utilities are forced to close powerplants.
Rick Perry, the governor of Texas, shares that lastconcern, telling Barack Obama in a letter that CSAPR “will have animmediate and devastating effect on Texas jobs, our economy and ourability to supply the electricity our citizens, schools and employersneed.” Texas filed its suit on September 21st, 12 days after Luminant, aDallas-based power company, did the same, saying that it will have toidle some of its coal-fired units and may stop mining lignite coal inthe state.
In all, 15 states have so far petitioned forreview of CSAPR in the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. All of themhave Republican governors. Such partisanship is not unusual. In 2008, 18states sued George Bush’s EPA for failing adequately to regulate carbondioxide; all but five of those states were governed by Democrats.
Yet it would be wrong to dismiss the states’ worries as partisansniping; CSAPR is not cost-free. Sometime, several months from now, thestates will get their day in court. Several months after that will come aruling that may settle the matter. Or it may set in motion another evenmore lengthy process of federal rule-making. Unfortunately, lawyers’breath is not yet an EPA-regulated pollutant. (592 words)
文章地址：http://www.economist.com.hk/node/21532309
页:
[1]